FCC Prosecution...please please help

[DaveNewcastle]

In that case, do you think my best course of action is to offer an out of court settlement? =/

No. Or at least, not at the present time.

I'll repeat, I would hope that if you provide all the facts that you have presented on here, (and if they are true, and there are no other relevant factors and they are not in conflict with the Inspector's report) then a reasonable Investigator will accept your story and close the investigation.

What I have been trying to explain, though, is that if the Investigator is not persuaded, then I've been struggling to see what evidence you have to refute a claim against you. If your case reaches that point, then, and only then, some sort of offer in settlement might be appropriate. But we're not there. Yet.

I'd continue to try and get them to drop it, but if they insist on a settlement then, yes, you probably should pay and continue to appeal afterwards (by escalating the case and attempting to get a refund less the fare due).

I'm not familiar with this tactical approach and cannot approve it without full appreciation of the hazards and costs of an appeal after a settlement.

 

[Muzer]

I'm confused by the insistence by many that there has been a RoRA breach here. I'm sure very few (or none) of us are lawyers, but isn't it generally held belief here that TOCs almost always go for Byelaw breaches because no intent needs to be proven?

In addition, I still don't see how intent not to pay the fare can be proven. There was no intent not to pay the fare because the OP believed the fare covering this journey already to have been paid - he intended to pay what he believed to be the full fare.

 

[martybabes]

@ DaveNewcastle

Thanks for your further observations (and no need to apologise for the delay).

The bit that interests me most in your response is this: ...which confirm that a person's intent can be inferred from their actions alone, without having to consider what might have been their thoughts.

What I find to be very persuasive in negativing intent is what the OP said originally, thus: I arrived at kings cross with a return travel card at 5:12am (To make it clear i was INSIDE kings cross station, not on the side of the barriers of arrival after taking a train; I had taken no train at this point). I gave my ticket to the RPO to which he told me my ticket expired at 4:30am

I have interpreted these actions as the OP believing he had a valid return ticket for travel there and then NOT that he was intending to avoid, deliberately or otherwise, to pay for his travel. It is for this reason I see a failure to prove intent (especially to the extent required to secure a conviction). Presumably, a transcript of the Q and As at the first interview will help to establish exactly what was in the mind of the OP notwithstanding your point about actions alone being sufficient, as this, I would strongly suggest, is very important in determining what charge, if any, should be brought. Mens rea is still very much an issue here.

As an aside, and in my previous life, this is what I always did when considering the Investigator's evidence. I look first at the evidence then determine the charge based on that evidence. Others I have known do it the other way around (i.e. look at the charges then see if the evidence fits).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Presumably, a transcript of the Q and As at the first interview will help to establish exactly what was in the mind of the OP notwithstanding your point about actions alone being sufficient, . . . .

Perhaps this is where we diverge.
We don't know what is writen in the Inspector's Notebook.
It's that Notebook that I've been referring to as 'evidence', and I have dissapointing feeling that it is not as supportive to blazintec as we might hope. If it had been as supportive, then he might not have received the initial correspondence from the Company. Hence my less confident interpretation.

Mens rea is still very much an issue here.

If we get as far as an argument, then yes, indeed.

I look first at the evidence then determine the charge based on that evidence. Others I have known do it the other way around (i.e. look at the charges then see if the evidence fits).

In terms of simple, one-off, first-time Railway fare irregularities, then with such a small range of potential Offences commonly available, it's surely going to be hard to resist the temptation to test the evidence against each available Offence (in descending order of severity).

 

[blazintec]

I can't believe I face the prospect of getting a criminal record for this...surely a railway lawyer specialist will be able to get me out of this, I'm not bothered about cost I just can't be getting prosecuted for something like this. I know it's still a stage or two away, but does anyone know some top railway lawyers you can recommend?

Also, does anyone have any idea how long I can expect to wait for a proper reply from FCC after replying to the prosecution letter?

 

[jon0844]

I'm not familiar with this tactical approach and cannot approve it without full appreciation of the hazards and costs of an appeal after a settlement.

I don't mean a legal appeal, but simply complaining afterwards. My point was not to complain and ignore the settlement offer if there's even a tiny risk of it progressing to court, or more fees.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Certainly, I doubt any Railway Revenue Investigator has a procedure chart with a branch which asks "does passenger claim they were authorised to travel without a valid ticket?" "If 'yes', stop the investigation".

In agreeing with all of the rest of your post #64 Dave, I think it is actually this last point that I find most important in the context of this particular thread.

You are right of course, I doubt anyone uses a cross-reference chart with such a specifically worded entry, but speaking from my own experiences, if that is a line of defence which is offered by a person who has been reported, I have always checked to see if it actually happened.

Now we all know that the accounts given by the traveller & reporting inspector may differ substantially, but I have always taken the view that after completing a detailed investigation, if I have any remaining doubt, no matter how small, then it is likely that a Magistrate will come to the same conclusion.

 

[island]

I'm confused by the insistence by many that there has been a RoRA breach here. I'm sure very few (or none) of us are lawyers, but isn't it generally held belief here that TOCs almost always go for Byelaw breaches because no intent needs to be proven?

In addition, I still don't see how intent not to pay the fare can be proven. There was no intent not to pay the fare because the OP believed the fare covering this journey already to have been paid - he intended to pay what he believed to be the full fare.

See my earlier post for an answer to this. The passenger was given permission to travel without a ticket by an authorised person so has a defence to a byelaw 18 prosecution (unless you had another byelaw in mind?)

 

[jon0844]

What paperwork was given to the OP? Otherwise, what would happen when reaching the destination and being found with an invalid ticket?

 

[blazintec]

At the barriers of my destination i explained my case to the RPI and he let me through. He initially tryed to give me a PF until i explained it all. I just got off
the phone with the prosecution department. She said she will give me a call later today. Fingers crossed they end it today and just let me pay the fare as agreed.

 

[jon0844]

I wonder if you could be done twice for the same offence?

Once before travel, and then again at the other end because the RPI there has no idea what happened before you travelled and treats you as a 'new' case!

If you'd been given a PF at King's Cross (and had the means to pay part of it), you would have at least had a bit of paper to give authority to travel.

And if they tried to give a PF at the other end and you couldn't pay, you'd have been reported again.

Crazy!

 

[blazintec]

I know its old, but are any of you established members of the forum aware of how this case ended? http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=43838

Seems pretty similiar to mine aside from the fact that I didn't buy a child ticket to get onto the platform nor did I travel+explained my situation to the RPI

 

[Tetchytyke]

I wonder if you could be done twice for the same offence?

Off topic, but doesn't a Penalty Fare only allow you to get to the next station?

 

[jon0844]

Off topic, but doesn't a Penalty Fare only allow you to get to the next station?

I don't fully know how it works, but I think there's a way to enable the passenger to complete their journey.

Goodness knows how you'd give a PF before travel when you don't know what train someone might get. What's the next stop from King's Cross? Finsbury Park or Cambridge?!

I know its old, but are any of you established members of the forum aware of how this case ended? http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=43838

Seems pretty similiar to mine aside from the fact that I didn't buy a child ticket to get onto the platform nor did I travel+explained my situation to the RPI

If you'd bought a child ticket or travelled and then been caught, I suspect that for the former you'd be up on a fraud charge.. and the latter, you might get the penalty fare - and then, without having any money, would have likely been reported for a byelaw offence (and the charge being dependent on how you answered the questions, like would you have walked out if not stopped). Your defence would have been the same, namely that you thought the ticket WAS valid until 6am, but I'm less convinced you'd have as much chance as you hopefully do for having been made aware of the validity before travelling.

I therefore don't think from what I've very briefly read it's really that relevant to your rather more unique situation.

The only other time I've seen someone done before travel was when a student doubled up with her mate and came through the barriers, and then proceeded to give at least two false names and address (I had to get my own train, so didn't see the outcome.. but assuming they eventually got her details, she'd have been reported for prosecution and hadn't even made it to the platform!).

 

[maniacmartin]

I know its old, but are any of you established members of the forum aware of how this case ended? http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=43838

Seems pretty similiar to mine aside from the fact that I didn't buy a child ticket to get onto the platform nor did I travel+explained my situation to the RPI

So not similar then! A child ticket would show intent for a start

 

[Deerfold]

Goodness knows how you'd give a PF before travel when you don't know what train someone might get. What's the next stop from King's Cross? Finsbury Park or Cambridge?!

I think the furthest it could be on a normal day is York.

I realise EC don't run a PF scheme but until you know which train someone's getting on you don't know which operator they'll be using either.

I don't think we've been told where the OP was going - if it was Stevenage or Peterborough they may not have been travelling on FCC anyway.

 

[jon0844]

I expect it was FCC and the gates in question were those 'blocking' 9-11, as it's EC staff on the other gates which would have likely been open at that time of the morning anyway.

This is just my own 'junior detective' skills at play.

 

[martybabes]

This PF before travel business - can someone explain to me how you can be penalised before you have even travelled? Is the very fact you are on the station concourse enough to warrant a penalty? There may well be a logical explanation for this, but it escapes me at the moment.

 

[blazintec]

I expect it was FCC and the gates in question were those 'blocking' 9-11, as it's EC staff on the other gates which would have likely been open at that time of the morning anyway.

This is just my own 'junior detective' skills at play.

No, as I said in my previous post, I spoke to an RPI at my destination who opened the barriers for me and let me go
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The widespread sense of skepticism in this thread greatly worries me, because it makes me think that if people I have no reason of lying to aren't fully convinced of my account, why on earth would FCC be?

 

[jon0844]

No, as I said in my previous post, I spoke to an RPI at my destination who opened the barriers for me and let me go

I was talking about where you came into the station originally at King's Cross.

The widespread sense of skepticism in this thread greatly worries me, because it makes me think that if people I have no reason of lying to aren't fully convinced of my account, why on earth would FCC be?

I think you've misunderstood the situation and the advancement of the discussion to talk about being done twice, or how you could be done in advance given the fact it's not obvious which train you might then take, or where you might go.

Out of interest, which station did you travel to?

 

[revenueadvice]

You cannot be given a penalty fare before travel as you have not travelled without a valid ticket.

You can have a statement taken under caution before travel if you show intent to avoid paying your fare and there fore you can be prosecuted.

If the OP had met me at Kings Cross that day and had acted exactly as he says he did then I would have simply authorised the ticket to travel back as he clearly wasn't trying to avoid his fare and was only making the return journey that he didn't make the day before and it was only a little while after the ticket became invalid but thats just me.

Even if I did decide to take the statement from him I would have written "Please bill for fare" on it. Then he would have been billed to pay the fare possibly plus an admin fee.

What law are they prosecuting you under? Bye laws or regulation of railways act?

There is a tear off slip at the bottom of the MG11 form which would normally be given to the passenger so they can continue their journey without any other problems. So at the point of boarding the train the OP would have authorisation to travel. I really do not understand how they are prosecuting you.

 

[jon0844]

I'd like to know what was given, if anything, and if nothing - why not given the fact it was just setting the OP off to travel with every chance of being caught again, and having no evidence whatsoever of having spoken to anyone (at least not until the paperwork might link up weeks down the line).

It is of course the same thing on those rare occasions where 'someone on the platform' really does give - perhaps the wrong - advice and also puts the passenger into an awkward, even dangerous, situation.

 

[Fare-Cop]

You cannot be given a penalty fare before travel as you have not travelled without a valid ticket.

Not strictly correct I'm afraid, see below

This PF before travel business - can someone explain to me how you can be penalised before you have even travelled? Is the very fact you are on the station concourse enough to warrant a penalty? There may well be a logical explanation for this, but it escapes me at the moment.

In some circumstances it can be if the platform you are on is a part of a designated compulsory ticket area (CTA)

See extract: SRA Penalty Fares Rules (2002)

6.3 Any person who is present in a compulsory ticket area intending to board a train must, if asked by an authorised collector, produce a valid ticket or other authority for the journey which they intend to make on that train.
6.4 Any person who is present in, or leaving, a compulsory ticket area, other than a person referred to in rule 6.1 or 6.3, must, if asked by an authorised collector, produce a valid ticket or other authority allowing them to be present in that compulsory ticket area.
6.5 If a person fails to produce a valid ticket or other authority in line with rule 6.3 or 6.4, the authorised collector may charge that person a penalty fare, in line with the Regulations and these rules.

 

[island]

There are very, very few compulsory ticket areas on the National Rail network though.

 

[blazintec]

So apparently I'm expecting a call tomorrow afternoon now. I'll keep you all updated: my next post in this thread will be whether or not I'm going being summoned to court. Thanks for all your help and advice thus far. Wish me luck...

 

[martybabes]

Not strictly correct I'm afraid, see below




In some circumstances it can be if the platform you are on is a part of a designated compulsory ticket area (CTA)

See extract: SRA Penalty Fares Rules (2002)

6.3 Any person who is present in a compulsory ticket area intending to board a train must, if asked by an authorised collector, produce a valid ticket or other authority for the journey which they intend to make on that train.
6.4 Any person who is present in, or leaving, a compulsory ticket area, other than a person referred to in rule 6.1 or 6.3, must, if asked by an authorised collector, produce a valid ticket or other authority allowing them to be present in that compulsory ticket area.
6.5 If a person fails to produce a valid ticket or other authority in line with rule 6.3 or 6.4, the authorised collector may charge that person a penalty fare, in line with the Regulations and these rules.

Ah hah! Thanks Fare-Cop.

 

[34D]

For the avoidance of doubt, Kings Cross mainline station is not a Compulsory Ticket Area (CTA).

 

[Fare-Cop]

For the avoidance of doubt, Kings Cross mainline station is not a Compulsory Ticket Area (CTA).

Yes, and that is just one of the many reasons why I think that assuming all is as the OP has told us in this particular thread, I get the feeling that any attempt to prosecute is misguided

 

[blazintec]

I got the call this morning, it actually woke me up Given reading my emails and the RPI reportf, I am to pay the £16 full fare from st pancras to Luton and that is the end of the matter. Thank god FCC came to there senses.

Thanks for all you guys help and support, as this has generally been an extremely distressing period in my life due to the fact that I am a natural worrier and genuinely felt I may end up with a criminal record (I want to be a doctor). If I ever get into a sticky situation with a TOC, I'll be back. See you all and have a good Christmas! So so so so relieved.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It's very good to know that your report of events was accepted - well done.

I guess you can put the whole thing behind you now and move on (once you've paid that fare, of course!) and that you don't feel put off travelling by public transport again.

An thanks for coming back to tell us.